Ground-targeted objects and in particular missiles present an increasing threat to ground installations and more especially to vehicles such as tanks, armoured personnel carriers and self-propelled guns. So far as vehicles are concerned, these are in particular threatened by the anti-tank guided missile, the shoulder-fired rocket, artillary and air-deliverable guided and cluster munitions, as well as by the variety of hollow-charge tipped weapons. Such incoming objects may be unguided, but are more usually manually wire-guided, semi-automatic wire or beam riding and increasingly fully automatic embodying fire and forget systems. They have a flight velocity in the range of about 140 to about 300 m/sec, but it is anticipated that current development will increase this maximum, possibly up to about 500 m/sec.
There are a number of possible solutions to the problem of damage and casualties due to the incoming object hitting its target. One is post-hit damage control, which, however successful it might be statistically, has the disadvantage of exposing the occupants of the installation or vehicle to the effects at least of the control or extinguishing means, and to the effect of an explosion should the control means fail; it is therefore very much of a "last-ditch" solution. A further possible solution is based on penetration prevention, e.g. by increasing the amount and effectiveness of the armour on a vehicle. However, it has been calculated that a one-inch increase in missile diameter will necessitate an additional 10-15 tons of armour to nullify its effect, so this is hardly a practical solution in the long-term, since it would lead to increasingly heavy and expensive armoured vehicles. Yet a further solution has been sought in the development of decoy methods which confuse or disrupt the missile's guidance system, or its operator. Such attempts have met with some success, but they cannot cover the wide variety of guidance systems and modes of operation in use or liable to be used in the future.
Finally, it is realized that the preferred solution should be to destroy the potential threat while it is still a threat, that is to say, while it is still en route to the target.
It is a manor object of the present invention to provide a solution to this problem along the lines just mentioned. An acceptable solution of this kind should have the following features, and such features constitute further objects of the invention:
(1) be an add-on, self-contained system; PA1 (2) each installation or vehicle should be independently protected; PA1 (3) be designed and built to withstand a variety of climatic and battle conditions; PA1 (4) not interfere with the installation's or the vehicle's personnel, and in the case of a vehicle should not interfere with its primary mission; PA1 (5) be immune from false alarms; PA1 (6) will not increase the threat to personnel by providing detection or homing means to the enemy; PA1 (7) be compatible with the installation's or the vehicle's operational environment; PA1 (8) not endanger the crew or adjacent personnel; and PA1 (9) have low weight, small physical size, no additional signature and a low price.
It is believed that at least most of these objects are met in the apparatus provided by the invention.